From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 713 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 13:43:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 700 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 13:43:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com (HELO aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com) (143.166.82.159) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:42:42 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,345,1212382800"; d="scan'208";a="352721096" Received: from unknown (HELO M31.equallogic.com) ([12.110.134.31]) by aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2008 08:42:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18551.25421.553226.304326@djudge-us-nas.equallogic.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:43:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: drow@false.org Cc: sandra@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> <18550.24158.544203.163257@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <48766999.6070001@codesourcery.com> <18550.28000.759268.379468@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20080710223312.GA19058@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> Sandra asked me to take a stab at explaining the mess we're Daniel> in. ... Daniel> I think that if someone wants to design a more reliable Daniel> protocol than the existing one, they are free to do so, and Daniel> either layer it under the existing protocol as described Daniel> above or contribute it to GDB - we're not leaving anyone out Daniel> in the cold and a new feature doesn't have to meet every Daniel> possible use case in its first incarnation. Fair enough. Ok, thanks. Daniel> This isn't the only problem with the existing protocol in my Daniel> opinion. It's pretty crufty, but it gets by. I'd agree with that. paul